Re:ESR should send big fat checks to Levy
on
Hackers
·
· Score: 2
My, you're one foolish little brit witch, aren't you? Do you ever bother reading footnotes, bibliograhpic notes etc?
For all/. readers as clue impaired as our friend above here's the scoop: ESR's version of THD is based upon Guy Steele's version whch largely predates Levy's book, and is even mentioned in it (if my memory serves, Levy even mispells Steele's first name as Gus). Of course, since ESR's version came out after Hackers he does quote the book, and many of its anecdotes, and gives credit where credit is due.
Notice, sorcerer friend, that Levy's book is not a dictionary and is not meant to tell a story. So save your conspiratory theories of who stiffed who for when you write your own ficion. Not that you seem to be good at it, though. --
This book is a must read for anyone who deeply enjoys computers, loves free software (or open source software, if that suits your taste buds better) and just gets that indescribable kick from hacking that so many of us do.
It also gives you historical perspective on a couple of issues that periodically turn up on Slashdot (for the flaming delight of all posters), such as: the hacker vs. cracker (invader, script kiddie, whatever) dichotomy; the attitude problems of the prophet RMS and how he came to be who he is; the personality problems of most hacker types; the gap between the many hacker generations and their slightly differing world views. And really so much more.
And a follow up is definitely due. All the experiences Levy have gone through during the period he wrote the book pale in comparison to the explosion of the hacker culture in the nineties, largely due to the popularization of the web and the free software movement. I wonder what book might come of that when Levy once again puts his pen to the proverbial paper. --
Por curiosidade, quando foi que a Conectiva tentou introduzir (epa!) um Linux proprietário (minha tradução livre do seu "closed Linux")?
Ninguém impede que um usário de RedHat instale RPMs da Conectiva (ou da SuSE, da Mandrake, da Caldera ou do seu Zé da padaria). Pessoas sensatas, entretanto, não misturam RPMs de diversas distribuições a menos que estes sejam explicitamente alardeados como "independente de distribuição"). --
You know what a source RPM is? You know that the source RPM includes the original tarball of the program, as it is provided by the maintainer? You know you can get that tarball from the source RPM and do pretty much anything that your little 'leet heart desires with it? You know that you can go one step ahead and make your personal customizations, rebuild the binary RPM package and install that instead of the original?
And what, oh enlightened one, may we the unwashed masses of/. ask, gives Your Leetness the idea that the simple act of./configure && make && make install that tarball will magically eliminate a buffer overflow?
Or did you mean a trojaned binary? You know, source could be trojaned too, right? Do you inspect the sofware you install for trojans? All of it? Yeah, right... --
Yes, and by using Solaris (a BSD Unix) they are headed in the right direction, wouldn't you say? I
agree, that is funny.
I don't know where you got the notion that Solaris is a BSD Unix. It used to be so, a really long time ago, but this isn't the case anymore (as with all other major commercial Unices). Heavens, SunOS 5.4 used to greet me with "UNIX (R) SysVR 4" or something at the login prompt. Please, stop difusing this bogus claim. --
He most certainly was a Jew, but why Arab? "Arab Jew" usually refers to Jews who live(d) in Arab countries.
I think what Kintannon was trying to say is that our good friend Joshua ben Joseph probably looked a lot like a Sefarad (or Sabra) Jew (leaning on the dark complexion side of the colour spectrum) rather than an Askenad Jew (which, by virtue of having mixed with Central Europeans throughout the centuries came to look a little like them).
His traditional portrait (with the light hair and blue eyes) of course draws a lot from Medieval artists from Germany, England and the Netherlands portraying the Son of God in their own (and their neighbour's) image. But long hair and beards have been popular in the Middle East for quite a long time, if those mesopothamian and persian sculptures are to be trusted.
And last, but not in any way the least, Aramaic, just as Hebrew is a close relative of Arabic, so Kintannon is really not that far off. --
So you just found RMS uses Apache and FreeBSD on his website (or perhaps his web host does this). I'm glad you're done with the racist web site shit, but what is exactly your point here, mate? --
You still have the option to not use linuxconf
And RedHat had the option not to include it, and you had the option not to post, but you did and they did. So what? AFAIK, RedHat fully endorses the linuxconf approach to sysadmin, an approach that is more monolithic even than Microsoft's control panel, not to mention it works less well. And, I don't even like Microsoft or Windows. [...]
Talk about twisting words: what I said, and I'll stand by it, is that Redhat is not forcing you to use to use linuxconf(1). Heavens, it is not even forcing you to install it. For all they care, you could install a plain vanilla, no X, GNU/Linux box and proceed to hack/etc with ed(1) to your heart's content, if that's your idea of the True Un*x Ways [TM] . OTOH, I am at a loss as to what you think they sould do: beat the people who wrote linuxconf(1) (remember, this isn't something that they wrote in their backyard)? Beat the people who think it is cool and want to use it? Like I said, which is it, mac?
And to be quite honest, I'm still confused by what you mean by monolithic, dictionary notwithstanding. You can use linuxconf(1) from X or from a terminal. You can use the "monolithic" interface, or call any of the specific tools: netconf(1), userconf(1) etc. Hell, it even tells you what it's doing for some stuff, like the system info shit it gets from/proc. How is that monolithic?
Mind you, I'm telling you all this after an apt-get install which worked flawlessly on my Debian system. After having had a second look at it, I think I might even begin to use it and like it. Like I said, it reminds me a little of smit(1) (do you even know what that is?) and, since sysadmin is only marginally related to my job, it makes this heavy but unavoidable burden a little lighter to bear. I see nothing wrong with that.
You proceed to say:
To this discussion, I contributed information gleaned from my user experience: I edited some files in/etc, and they were unedited with no warning by a configuration tool that I used after that. That never
happened in the old RedHat distros and I'm dismayed at the change. To this discussion you didn't
contribute anything. If you only have experience with old versions of RedHat, you've nothing to say
here.
Could I be wrong about my experience? Yes, perhaps I inadvertantly overwrote that file. I'd love to
hear from someone with up to date info explain that I must be wrong. But you're not him.
Don't be so sure about that, gal. I've been using Redhat since late '94 (and I used Slackware before that too), I've seen it come around quite a lot (remember Red Baron?). If you would mind telling me what did you change, how and why, I might be able to help.
You finish it with this:
My claim was that the vast majority of new linux users already are familiar with Windows. Are you claiming otherwise? Make a different claim of your own, or shut up. Your nattering is irritating.
Slow down, Sally. You replied to a post of mine in which I chastised an AC post unfairly modded up that dissed RedHat for bogus reasons. All I'm trying to say is that RH gets a bad rap from ACs and cluebies who try to sound "experienced" or "leet" by dissing them. I find that very irritating. And you are right, I have no reason to infer that the majority of Linux newbies come from the Windows world. AFAIK, they might as well come from no-computerland (think teenage pre-geeks who just got a PC from Dad here). The sad thing is that six months after successfully installing SuSE, they finally manage to install Slackware (or FreeBSD, nowadays), suddenly think their super-gurus and start to dismiss RH users as newbies. Pathetic, really. --
Linuxconf is monolithic [...] netcfg is so much nicer [...]. Kudzu is monolithic [...]
Blah, blah monolithic. You still have the option to not use linuxconf(1), just like I didn't when I used to use RedHat. And we have a basic misunderstanding about the term monolithic here: providing a (arguably) nice visual interface to a lot of utilities and/proc fiddling is not the same as being monolithic in my book. Would you consider smit(1) under AIX to be monolithic? Or are you using monolithic as short for "stuff I don't like"?
There are tools (those above?) which seem to keep shadow copies of some config files.
I can't recall any from my RH days, and I feel obliged to remind you that there isn't any tool you are forced to use. right?
What bothers me about it is that there are very few computer newbies around. Most linux newbies come from Windows, and the RH model (followed by quite a few others too) seems to be "make linux look like Windows". I don't see any efforts to teach the unix ways (examples: stdin/stdout, X server vs. X client, text! text! text! config files...). Creating Windows all over again going the wrong way.
You really need to go out more if you think there aren't a lot of computer newbies around. Linux newbies may come from the Windows, Macintosh or Big Blue sky world. There is no need for them ro become deft sysadmins to use their Linux box, unless they plan to follow that unfortunate career path (oops, gratuitous flamebait >:-). Although, I'm not sure what you mean by "Unix ways" (which UN*X? SysV flavored or BSD flavored?), you can find the kind of documentation you request here, there and everywhere. I don't know how they could go about "teaching" it, but then again, I never took of the courses they offer...
And, frankly, all this talk of "making it look like Windows" is quite boring and inaccurate. The only default installation that tried to mimic the Windows look was that fvwm95 thing by RH, but they have moved out from it a long time ago. Even then, you still had the option to customize it, right? --
There are plenty of deep pockets out there distributing KDE. Not one of them has been hauled into court over it.
I wouldn't consider SuSE, Mandrake and Redhat deep pockets, strictu sensu.
Could it be that the GPV isn't as ironclad as RMS and his cult followers would have us believe?
Now, this, together with your.sig just make you look foolish. Incidentally agreeing with RMS on a lot of stuff does not make one a cult member. Neither does caring about the freeness of the software one uses. And you are very naïve if you think the GPL wasn't wrought with fully expert legal advise, something you and a lot of/.ers are incapable of. --
The first half of your post was really good, putting some historical perspective, for the newbies out there, of the importance of the contribution of Cygnus to the improvement of GCC. That deserve the full moderation you got.
But then you spoiled it all with your lame "disclaimer", which is neither funny nor accurate. What monolithic config apps are you talking about? In what does RH prevent you from mangling the whole of/etc with vi(1)? How is RH strongarming the competition or ruining compatibility with others (not SuSE, Mandrake or Caldera, for sure)? Can you pinpoint the incompatibilities between the lates RH beta and "potato" for instance? Or is this incompatibility you're talking about mainly with some other distro (which used to be very popular a long time ago), that is, incidentally also incompatible with all the other distros I mentioned. Now, is it really RH's fault?
More to the point, what is it that bothers you so much about Redhat apart from the fact that they try to make GNU/Linux palatable to newbies? And if it's that fact mostly, then I have to ask you why? --
Your comment sounds a little bogus. I have never seen a young/.er eulogizing the use of cat(1) and sed(1) for program development. Yes, a sizeable amount of them extol the virtues of vi(1) (supposedly to stay truthful to the nature of UN*X, as if vi(1) were an original part of UN*X) as a great programming tool, but I would hardly call vi(1) a command line program. --
And they don't have to. They can just hire their favorite consultant to install it and have him check the oil every week or so, paying him by the hour.
And they will have to do it, be the solution adopted Linux or Windows. The only way to forfeit paying someone is if the owner's daughter is a computer geek, but then guess what system she's more likely to tinker with <g> ? --
You must be reading a very different Slashdot than me, or you are browsing at the unadvisable level of -1. Browsing this discussion at +1, so far, I have seen a mix of bad information and interesting discussion, but none of the puerile remarks you mentioned. Beware, from such overgeneralizations that prejudice is born.
With all its supposed zealotry ,/. is still an infinitely superior source of meaningful technical information and debate than ZDnet, CNet, MSNBC and ABCNews put together. --
I guess this the proverbial "apples" vs. "oranges" comaparison. You can think of handles in the Win32 API in much the same way you think of file descriptors under the Un*x API, i.e., even though they're called "file" descriptors they don't always refer to bona fide files. And don't confuse Win32 with the windowing system. A much more sensible comparison would be to equate it to the Un*x API, as I've said.
There, I just about detroyed my reputation as a Un*x zealot by defending NT <g> ! --
All this talk of support costs making the TCO (argh! I hate having to resort to marketing jargon) of a Linux solution being higher than that of a similar Windows one is ingenious, but patently false and bogus.
Believe it or not, but Windows 2000 also needs skilled administrators. Believe or not, but Linux (or Un*x in general) sysadmins are not rocket scientists. Believe it or not, both the Windows and the Linux sysadmin earn more or less the same amount of money (close enough as to be irrelevant for a large company).
So, in the end what's left is marketing perception, or that warm, fuzzy feeling inside that some IT managers get from having all their IT solutions coming from a single vendor (be it Microsoft, Sun, IBM or Unisys). It's not economical, but rather psychological. And it is this perception that Linux companies have to tackle in order to gain marketshare. And believe it, that's what they're doing, albeit with very small strides. --
Actually, I think it's an 's' (es) and a 'z' (zet, pronounced 'tset') tied together by the liaison in old German (gothic) script. Don't know why it came to be written alternatively as an 'ss', but then again, IANAG (but I imitate accents quite well:-) --
Killfiles don't silence you, son, they just allow easily annoyable people to selectively plug their ears to the blabbering of fools such as yourself. Think of boring seat neighbour on a really long flight here, if your imagination can be stretched this far. --
How am I a fascist when I say that it would be nice to have a 'killfile' feature on/. (unlikely, for technical and political reasons) which would only allow me (and others like minded) to plug their virtual ears from the inane verbiage of known trolls such as Zico, ArchieBunker et caterva, just like some of us do with the boring harangues of author JonKatz? And are you the democratic one, when you lamely appeal to the higher powers of moderation to silence me? I am only hoping that I could cover my ears, you are enticing people to muffle my voice. Pathetic, isn't it?
And notice that almost every post that comes from the virtual pen of Zico disparages/. and its supposed zealotry. Well, if it bothers him so much to read it (and mind it, he's not one those pining for the golden days of/., because it has always been like this), why doesn't he go away? I would satisfy both parties. --
Slashdot Mirror
For all /. readers as clue impaired as our friend above here's the scoop: ESR's version of THD is based upon Guy Steele's version whch largely predates Levy's book, and is even mentioned in it (if my memory serves, Levy even mispells Steele's first name as Gus). Of course, since ESR's version came out after Hackers he does quote the book, and many of its anecdotes, and gives credit where credit is due.
Notice, sorcerer friend, that Levy's book is not a dictionary and is not meant to tell a story. So save your conspiratory theories of who stiffed who for when you write your own ficion. Not that you seem to be good at it, though.
--
It also gives you historical perspective on a couple of issues that periodically turn up on Slashdot (for the flaming delight of all posters), such as: the hacker vs. cracker (invader, script kiddie, whatever) dichotomy; the attitude problems of the prophet RMS and how he came to be who he is; the personality problems of most hacker types; the gap between the many hacker generations and their slightly differing world views. And really so much more.
And a follow up is definitely due. All the experiences Levy have gone through during the period he wrote the book pale in comparison to the explosion of the hacker culture in the nineties, largely due to the popularization of the web and the free software movement. I wonder what book might come of that when Levy once again puts his pen to the proverbial paper.
--
Ninguém impede que um usário de RedHat instale RPMs da Conectiva (ou da SuSE, da Mandrake, da Caldera ou do seu Zé da padaria). Pessoas sensatas, entretanto, não misturam RPMs de diversas distribuições a menos que estes sejam explicitamente alardeados como "independente de distribuição").
--
I wouldn't go sofar as calling Solaris package tools good. Useful perhaps, but good? Nah....
--
Consider yourself enlightened.
--
Or did you mean a trojaned binary? You know, source could be trojaned too, right? Do you inspect the sofware you install for trojans? All of it? Yeah, right...
--
That's the quality of newbies we get these days. And to think that some of them regard themselves as experts...Shudder.
--
What is a 'r33t h4x0r'? A Japanese script kiddie with a heavy accent?
--
I don't know where you got the notion that Solaris is a BSD Unix. It used to be so, a really long time ago, but this isn't the case anymore (as with all other major commercial Unices). Heavens, SunOS 5.4 used to greet me with "UNIX (R) SysVR 4" or something at the login prompt. Please, stop difusing this bogus claim.
--
Im my mind at least, that cancels ouy any implication of zealotry on his part now, wouldn't you agree?
The same, unfortunately cannot be said about you.
--
I think what Kintannon was trying to say is that our good friend Joshua ben Joseph probably looked a lot like a Sefarad (or Sabra) Jew (leaning on the dark complexion side of the colour spectrum) rather than an Askenad Jew (which, by virtue of having mixed with Central Europeans throughout the centuries came to look a little like them).
His traditional portrait (with the light hair and blue eyes) of course draws a lot from Medieval artists from Germany, England and the Netherlands portraying the Son of God in their own (and their neighbour's) image. But long hair and beards have been popular in the Middle East for quite a long time, if those mesopothamian and persian sculptures are to be trusted.
And last, but not in any way the least, Aramaic, just as Hebrew is a close relative of Arabic, so Kintannon is really not that far off.
--
So you just found RMS uses Apache and FreeBSD on his website (or perhaps his web host does this). I'm glad you're done with the racist web site shit, but what is exactly your point here, mate?
--
- French: le soleil;
- Italian: il sole;
- Spanish: el sol;
- Portuguese: o sol;
That's my polyglot pedantic tip of the day <g>--
You still have the option to not use linuxconf And RedHat had the option not to include it, and you had the option not to post, but you did and they did. So what? AFAIK, RedHat fully endorses the linuxconf approach to sysadmin, an approach that is more monolithic even than Microsoft's control panel, not to mention it works less well. And, I don't even like Microsoft or Windows. [...]
Talk about twisting words: what I said, and I'll stand by it, is that Redhat is not forcing you to use to use linuxconf(1). Heavens, it is not even forcing you to install it. For all they care, you could install a plain vanilla, no X, GNU/Linux box and proceed to hack /etc with ed(1) to your heart's content, if that's your idea of the True Un*x Ways [TM] . OTOH, I am at a loss as to what you think they sould do: beat the people who wrote linuxconf(1) (remember, this isn't something that they wrote in their backyard)? Beat the people who think it is cool and want to use it? Like I said, which is it, mac?
And to be quite honest, I'm still confused by what you mean by monolithic, dictionary notwithstanding. You can use linuxconf(1) from X or from a terminal. You can use the "monolithic" interface, or call any of the specific tools: netconf(1), userconf(1) etc. Hell, it even tells you what it's doing for some stuff, like the system info shit it gets from /proc. How is that monolithic?
Mind you, I'm telling you all this after an apt-get install which worked flawlessly on my Debian system. After having had a second look at it, I think I might even begin to use it and like it. Like I said, it reminds me a little of smit(1) (do you even know what that is?) and, since sysadmin is only marginally related to my job, it makes this heavy but unavoidable burden a little lighter to bear. I see nothing wrong with that.
You proceed to say:
To this discussion, I contributed information gleaned from my user experience: I edited some files in /etc, and they were unedited with no warning by a configuration tool that I used after that. That never
happened in the old RedHat distros and I'm dismayed at the change. To this discussion you didn't
contribute anything. If you only have experience with old versions of RedHat, you've nothing to say
here.
Could I be wrong about my experience? Yes, perhaps I inadvertantly overwrote that file. I'd love to hear from someone with up to date info explain that I must be wrong. But you're not him.
Don't be so sure about that, gal. I've been using Redhat since late '94 (and I used Slackware before that too), I've seen it come around quite a lot (remember Red Baron?). If you would mind telling me what did you change, how and why, I might be able to help.
You finish it with this:
My claim was that the vast majority of new linux users already are familiar with Windows. Are you claiming otherwise? Make a different claim of your own, or shut up. Your nattering is irritating.
Slow down, Sally. You replied to a post of mine in which I chastised an AC post unfairly modded up that dissed RedHat for bogus reasons. All I'm trying to say is that RH gets a bad rap from ACs and cluebies who try to sound "experienced" or "leet" by dissing them. I find that very irritating. And you are right, I have no reason to infer that the majority of Linux newbies come from the Windows world. AFAIK, they might as well come from no-computerland (think teenage pre-geeks who just got a PC from Dad here). The sad thing is that six months after successfully installing SuSE, they finally manage to install Slackware (or FreeBSD, nowadays), suddenly think their super-gurus and start to dismiss RH users as newbies. Pathetic, really.
--
Blah, blah monolithic. You still have the option to not use linuxconf(1), just like I didn't when I used to use RedHat. And we have a basic misunderstanding about the term monolithic here: providing a (arguably) nice visual interface to a lot of utilities and /proc fiddling is not the same as being monolithic in my book. Would you consider smit(1) under AIX to be monolithic? Or are you using monolithic as short for "stuff I don't like"?
There are tools (those above?) which seem to keep shadow copies of some config files.
I can't recall any from my RH days, and I feel obliged to remind you that there isn't any tool you are forced to use. right?
What bothers me about it is that there are very few computer newbies around. Most linux newbies come from Windows, and the RH model (followed by quite a few others too) seems to be "make linux look like Windows". I don't see any efforts to teach the unix ways (examples: stdin/stdout, X server vs. X client, text! text! text! config files...). Creating Windows all over again going the wrong way.
You really need to go out more if you think there aren't a lot of computer newbies around. Linux newbies may come from the Windows, Macintosh or Big Blue sky world. There is no need for them ro become deft sysadmins to use their Linux box, unless they plan to follow that unfortunate career path (oops, gratuitous flamebait >:-). Although, I'm not sure what you mean by "Unix ways" (which UN*X? SysV flavored or BSD flavored?), you can find the kind of documentation you request here, there and everywhere. I don't know how they could go about "teaching" it, but then again, I never took of the courses they offer...
And, frankly, all this talk of "making it look like Windows" is quite boring and inaccurate. The only default installation that tried to mimic the Windows look was that fvwm95 thing by RH, but they have moved out from it a long time ago. Even then, you still had the option to customize it, right?
--
I wouldn't consider SuSE, Mandrake and Redhat deep pockets, strictu sensu.
Could it be that the GPV isn't as ironclad as RMS and his cult followers would have us believe?
Now, this, together with your .sig just make you look foolish. Incidentally agreeing with RMS on a lot of stuff does not make one a cult member. Neither does caring about the freeness of the software one uses. And you are very naïve if you think the GPL wasn't wrought with fully expert legal advise, something you and a lot of /.ers are incapable of.
--
But then you spoiled it all with your lame "disclaimer", which is neither funny nor accurate. What monolithic config apps are you talking about? In what does RH prevent you from mangling the whole of /etc with vi(1)? How is RH strongarming the competition or ruining compatibility with others (not SuSE, Mandrake or Caldera, for sure)? Can you pinpoint the incompatibilities between the lates RH beta and "potato" for instance? Or is this incompatibility you're talking about mainly with some other distro (which used to be very popular a long time ago), that is, incidentally also incompatible with all the other distros I mentioned. Now, is it really RH's fault?
More to the point, what is it that bothers you so much about Redhat apart from the fact that they try to make GNU/Linux palatable to newbies? And if it's that fact mostly, then I have to ask you why?
--
Your comment sounds a little bogus. I have never seen a young /.er eulogizing the use of cat(1) and sed(1) for program development. Yes, a sizeable amount of them extol the virtues of vi(1) (supposedly to stay truthful to the nature of UN*X, as if vi(1) were an original part of UN*X) as a great programming tool, but I would hardly call vi(1) a command line program.
--
And they will have to do it, be the solution adopted Linux or Windows. The only way to forfeit paying someone is if the owner's daughter is a computer geek, but then guess what system she's more likely to tinker with <g> ?
--
With all its supposed zealotry , /. is still an infinitely superior source of meaningful technical information and debate than ZDnet, CNet, MSNBC and ABCNews put together.
--
There, I just about detroyed my reputation as a Un*x zealot by defending NT <g> !
--
Believe it or not, but Windows 2000 also needs skilled administrators. Believe or not, but Linux (or Un*x in general) sysadmins are not rocket scientists. Believe it or not, both the Windows and the Linux sysadmin earn more or less the same amount of money (close enough as to be irrelevant for a large company).
So, in the end what's left is marketing perception, or that warm, fuzzy feeling inside that some IT managers get from having all their IT solutions coming from a single vendor (be it Microsoft, Sun, IBM or Unisys). It's not economical, but rather psychological. And it is this perception that Linux companies have to tackle in order to gain marketshare. And believe it, that's what they're doing, albeit with very small strides.
--
Actually, I think it's an 's' (es) and a 'z' (zet, pronounced 'tset') tied together by the liaison in old German (gothic) script. Don't know why it came to be written alternatively as an 'ss', but then again, IANAG (but I imitate accents quite well :-)
--
Killfiles don't silence you, son, they just allow easily annoyable people to selectively plug their ears to the blabbering of fools such as yourself. Think of boring seat neighbour on a really long flight here, if your imagination can be stretched this far.
--
How am I a fascist when I say that it would be nice to have a 'killfile' feature on /. (unlikely, for technical and political reasons) which would only allow me (and others like minded) to plug their virtual ears from the inane verbiage of known trolls such as Zico, ArchieBunker et caterva, just like some of us do with the boring harangues of author JonKatz? And are you the democratic one, when you lamely appeal to the higher powers of moderation to silence me? I am only hoping that I could cover my ears, you are enticing people to muffle my voice. Pathetic, isn't it?
And notice that almost every post that comes from the virtual pen of Zico disparages /. and its supposed zealotry. Well, if it bothers him so much to read it (and mind it, he's not one those pining for the golden days of /., because it has always been like this), why doesn't he go away? I would satisfy both parties.
--